{
  "id": 8627709,
  "name": "STATE v. CODY FORBES",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Forbes",
  "decision_date": "1936-10-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "567",
  "last_page": "568",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 N.C. 567"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "176 N. C., 724",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658178
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/176/0724-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N. C., 649",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627886
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/207/0649-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N. C., 197",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8599394
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0197-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N. C., 967",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11256454
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0967-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 N. C., 299",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616749
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/204/0299-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 229,
    "char_count": 3977,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43887423552492827
    },
    "sha256": "fa9dd5c989da57398f869756d629ac1c3d44f8d0cebbcd5b7e8949cc1a9e40bb",
    "simhash": "1:98103ecd4ab21cf2",
    "word_count": 660
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:05.250790+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. CODY FORBES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Devin, J.\nThe criminal offense of which this defendant was convicted is statutory. Its essential elements appear in the language of the statute, C. S., 4339, and have been frequently stated-in the decisions of this Court to be: (1) Seduction, (2) promise of marriage, (3) innocence and virtue of the prosecutrix. In addition, the statute contains the further proviso that the \u201cunsupported testimony of the woman shall not be sufficient to convict.\u201d\nSo, that in order to sustain a conviction under this statute, to each of the constituent elements of the offense there must be \u201csupporting testimony\u201d in addition to that of the prosecutrix, and this supporting testimony must necessarily consist of independent facts and circumstances. S. v. Patrick, 204 N. C., 299.\nThe defendant in the case at bar bases his motion for nonsuit upon the failure of the State to offer \u201csupporting testimony\u201d of the promise of marriage.\nThe only evidence in addition to that of the prosecutrix was that of a girl friend, who testified that the prosecutrix told her, \u201cMe and Cody is going to get married.\u201d This witness further testified: \u201cI couldn\u2019t say bow often I saw them together. He was down pretty often. He came down over a period of approximately a year and eight months. I would see them together sometimes in town, sometimes they would be going to the show or to ride, the usual places where young people congregate.\u201d There was no testimony from any other witness that they bad been seen together.\nThe testimony of the witness as to what the prosecutrix told her was competent only in corroboration of the prosecutrix as a witness, and was so restricted by the court. It was not supporting testimony within the meaning of the statute, as it emanated from the prosecutrix herself. S. v. Moody, 172 N. C., 967.\nThe evidence of the witness, as set out in the record and quoted above, falls short of proof of such independent facts and circumstances as would constitute supporting testimony. S. v. McDade, 208 N. C., 197; S. v. Tuttle, 207 N. C., 649; S. v. Patrick, supra; S. v. Fulcher, 176 N. C., 724.\nFor the reasons stated, we think the learned judge who presided over the trial of the case below should have sustained the motion for judgment of nonsuit.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Devin, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Sea-well and Assistant Attorney-General Me Mullan for the State.",
      "J. V. Bowers for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. CODY FORBES.\n(Filed 14 October, 1936.)\n1. Seduction A a\u2014\nTbe essential elements o\u00ed tbe statutory offense of seduction are (1) seduction, (2) promise of marriage, (3) innocence and virtue of tbe prosecutrix.\n2. Seduction B d\u2014\nIn order for a conviction of seduction under C. S., 4339, there must be inculpating evidence of eaeb of tbe essential elements of tbe crime, in addition to the testimony of prosecutrix, and such \u201csupporting testimony\u201d must necessarily consist of independent facts and circumstances.\n3. Same \u2014 Testimony of witness that prosecutrix said she and defendant were to be married held not to constitute \u201csupporting testimony.\u201d\nIn this prosecution for seduction, tbe only evidence in support of tbe testimony of prosecutrix on tbe essential element of promise of marriage was tbe testimony of a witness, admitted solely for the purpose of corroborating prosecutrix, that prosecutrix bad told the witness that she and defendant were going to be married, and tbe further testimony of tbe witness that she bad seen prosecutrix and defendant together over a period of a year and eight months. No other witness testified that prose-cutrix and defendant bad beeu seen together. Held: Tbe testimony of the witness is not sufficient to constitute proof of tbe promise of marriage by facts and circumstances independent of tbe testimony of prosecutrix, and defendant\u2019s motion to nonsuit should have been granted.\nAppeal by defendant from Sink, J., at April Term, 1936, of Aveey.\nEeversed.\nDefendant was convicted of seduction under promise of marriage, and from judgment pronounced be appealed.\nAttorney-General Sea-well and Assistant Attorney-General Me Mullan for the State.\nJ. V. Bowers for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0567-01",
  "first_page_order": 633,
  "last_page_order": 634
}